Atheists (Psychos) bow to a lower Level than ever before, as if that were possible :)

I haven't proposed the idea of God yet.

All my argument demonstrates is that Atheism is false, and by default, God must exist.

Theology is that area of study. We're not at that stage at this point. If you'd like, I'll discuss this.

Do you have proof that there is not a tooth fairy? What evidence would you have?

We could test to see if Santa Claus existed. All we need do is look around at the North Pole for him. We have yet to find him....though if Santa Claus exists, since he is Material, he would be a contingent belief. We have spotted no evidence that he might exist at the North Pole.

We could also test for Invisible Pink Unicorns. Though, these would be logically impossible to exist, because if they are invisible and have infrared rays to the extent that we can see that they're pink, then they're not invisible. Thats much like the Flying Spaghetti Monster. So they must not be real, because they are illogical.
We could test for Pink Unicorns, but since we have yet to see a Pink Unicorn, by default, we can throw them out due to lack of evidential support.

The problem with God is that we do have evidential support for his existence. Since the beginning of time, Ancient cultures, nearly side by side in existence have been declaring that there was a God who created the heavens and the Earth. It has only been 200 years ago that people have started proclaiming that we descended from a common ancestry of some sorts (a la Darwin). However, since its illogical to claim that things change in a Permanence, as does Evolution state that its claim must imply that it has permanently changed from one being to another since the beginning of time, we can declare that Evolution is also illogical and false. By default, creation exists to be known, since the only two options are Creation or Not Created (Evolution) (Law of Excluded Middle once again). Again you will declare this is not Science, but it is in fact Science...its Origin Science! This is a legitimate field of study despite the mistakes of the moderns Scientists.

The next question we must ask is how this God interacts with his creation. It could be a Deistic God, in which God created the earth and then abandoned it. However, since the Anthropological argument demonstrates that Morals are Universal to all of mankind, we can state that life has a purpose of some sort as well that comes along with knowing the good from the bad. The next argument that demonstrates Deism false is the Moral Design Argument, and this indicates that the only logical God available to us is a Theistic God of some sorts. This would eliminate Buddhism, and several other religions that do not include a God.

The next area of study is how many Gods there are. Polytheism and Monotheism are the only two options here. Now, theres an argument, I'm trying to recall what it is, but if Polytheism is correct, we must notate that All would be One. A chair would be a pencil, and their essence would also be the same. Pantheism is self defeating and false as self evidently defined above. A Polytheism with a finite universe could also be possible...though unlikely. We can use Ockham's Razor, the Principle of Parsimony to state that we need only One God here, or we can use the Law of Identity to state that any God described would have to equal only one God in nature, since they're all infinite and immaterial by nature (with the refutation of Pantheism). In other words, if there were an alleged 2nd God, it would in fact be the first God, since they'd have to be identical by nature..essence and existence!

Now, we have three different Monotheistic religions of wide concern here. The most popular are Judaism, the Muslims, and the Christians.

To narrow it down a bit further, we of course need to see what each one incorporates. Judaism involves two holy books (we must know what the holy books state in order to know what God we're serving....otherwise, what are we really serving here?). The Torah and the Talmud. The Muslims use the Koran. And the Christians use the Bible.

The problem with the Koran is many. It states, ""If you have any doubt regarding what is revealed to you from your Lord, then ask those who read the previous scripture" (Sura 10:94). " This is a problem. It states that the Koran must be compared to the "previous scriptures" (its also notated that the word Gospel is also used as a comparison within the Koran as well) otherwise known as the Bible. The Koran thoroughly contradicts the Bible! The Koran explicity denies the crucifixion and resurrection of Jesus Christ. Thats also a further problem since we have accounts of Josephus to argue against that as well, and the Muslims have nothing to go by here. Thats enough, but we can go further to demonstrate how the Koran is not a holy book. A second problem is in regards to whether or not Muhammad is a prophet or not. This centers around the Child of Promise within the Old Testament. If Isaac is the Child of Promise (which he is, as can be demonstrated per Genesis 16, where Abraham agrees to take Hagar as his concubine, and she bears Ishmael, who would need to be the child of promise in order for Muhammad to be a prophet. He was not, according to Genesis 17. Further, God promised a child through Sarah, not Hagar (Genesis 17-18), and in due time God fulfilled His promise. "And the Lord visited Sarah as He had said, and the Lord did for Sarah as He had spoken. For Sarah conceived and bore Abraham a son in his old age, at the set time of which God had spoken to him. And Abraham called the name of his son who was born to him-whom Sarah bore to him-isaac." (Genesis 21:1-3) Muhammad therefore is not a prophet! Furthermore, we have in the Suras - (Sura 19:54; compare Sura 37:83-109 with Genesis 22:1-19) that the Koran teaches that Ishmael was the child of promise. This is false. And by the way, since the Muslims had the Koran in 700 A.D., they bear the burden of proof, despite their little just-so story about Gabriel and such. The Koran also confuses the mother of Jesus Mary with Myriam, the sister of Moses! This gets into a whole slew of Historical problems.

We are left with the Christians and the Jews. This one's a bit tougher to analyze. Some will say that the Jews were first, and that therefore the Christians bear the burden of proof, but this could hardly be correct. All throughout the Bible, it is stated that the Bible is first for the Jews, then for the Gentiles. The Messianic Jews in which the Bible talks about here are still in existence today. We have no discrepancy between this issue, because the Jews are included within the Bible. The only recourse that the Jews have to take is to argue that Jesus was not the Messiah. This presents a problem to them due to the fact that the Tanakh used by the Jews is exactly identical to the prophecies mentioned in the Old Testament. Its further complicated by the fact that the Talmud mentions Jesus, and that Jesus performed miracles and such, but that Jesus was basically a sorcerer (mind you written 500 years after the New Testament). The Talmud is filled with all different kinds of Mystical and Magical events that are unsupported by any real evidence. Thus, the Orthodox Jews attempt was to primarily ignore 2000 years of history, and try to stay "traditional" instead of following the purpose for what the Old Testament's true intent actually was in the first place. But again, God did not command us to follow Religion. Nowhere is it mentioned within the Old Testament that we are to follow the traditions of mankind, and as a matter of fact, it states that we are NOT to do so here. Also, the Orthodox Jews by definition are unsaved, because of the fact that (and I've been to a Messianic Jewish church a few times, so thats how I actually know this) in Leviticus and Deutoronomy, it says that sin must be forgiven by blood, or by a sacrifice of some sort. The ultimate sacrifice for mankind was Jesus Christ, so the Christians are saved, and the Jews are not. Not to mention, as a side bad, the Christians truly analyze every little thing to see if its correct or not. I can attest that Luke was not lying when he said he thoroughly checked all of the evidence to see if it was true, and came to the conclusion that Jesus Christ was who he proclaimed to be....the one and only true Son of God and our Messiah .
Now....call me silly, but does the above argument amke sense? Yes..I'd say it flows pretty well.

What do the Psychos think? We'll take a look at Psychotic Atheistic response no. 1 -

Heethun666 - However, since its illogical to claim that things change in a Permanence, as does Evolution state that its claim must imply that it has permanently changed from one being to another since the beginning of time, we can declare that Evolution is also illogical and false. By default, creation exists to be known, since the only two options are Creation or Not Created (Evolution) (Law of Excluded Middle once again). Again you will declare this is not Science, but it is in fact Science...its Origin Science! This is a legitimate field of study despite the mistakes of the moderns Scientists. - Apparently, the response to this....well, just check it out below, its quite hilarious.

I'm going to ignore that you use a circular reasoning by using the bible to support believing the christian fairy tales in it and just ask, what does 'change in a permanence mean? - Who's using the Bible to believe a fairy tale? A fairy tale by definition, is something that doesn't have actual grounds of Historical accuracy, somewhat like Snow White and the 7 Dwarfs or the Science Fiction of Evolution/Big Bang Theory. Obviously, the Bible has plenty of evidence...and the Psychos have no basis for their claim here. If anything, the fairy tale accusation belongs on the other side...for their wishful thinking fallacy here. And um, speaking of circular reasoning.......how about the circular reasoning that the Bible just can't be true after I've demonstrated how it can be true.......
Just because we can't be certain how things began doesn't mean we have to believe that it was created by some single guy in the sky. (Sky daddy, right? Who said it was a "guy"? It was a spirit, an infinite and immaterial being. Wow, no wonder they don't believe in God. They can't even get the initial beliefs right.) And just becuause dirty ancient sheep hearders wrote a book saying that they were right doesn't make them right. (well, I don't know many dirty ancient sheep hearders who wrote anything in the Bible, but it appears, you have committed the fallacy of Chronological snobbery here....not so good....)
I believe that man evolved a need for simple explanations for things that baffled him and that religion is a result of that. (Wow, and how might this "evolution" have taken place? I think you should stick to the Aliens from outer space coming down to plant the seed argument. That sounds more coherent than this. Especially with EVERYBODY all at the same time proposing this concept. Again...circular reasoning who?) Hopefully we will evolve past that need. (Perhaps you will also agree on how old the Earth is...I suppose that keeps "evolving" as well, right?) The world will be a much more peaceful place if and when we do. - So you are not certain but are certain that they evolved (Psycho alert). Alright! Way to go, for not knowing how things began, you sure do know alot about how they began. This is self defeating nonsense...but great for a laugh.

Yeah, gotta love the Atheists......they at least make for some great entertainment. Their arguments are useless nonsense...but hey, it could be worse, right? They could be Hitler's predecessors or something crazy like that (a.k.a. the world will be a much more peaceful place without religion). I shall say then, we should get rid of Evolution :). Its just as much a religion. Psychos!